And once again, SemiSteve asserted: " Of course, the biggest problem of all, global warming, is directly related to this."

--Whoa, there, pardner.. Global warming hasn't been proven to occur as of yet. The jury is still out, scientifically speaking. First, if global warming is occurring, and in the last 20 or so years CO2 has gone up, then why has temp leveled over the last 20 years, though CO2 went up? Gore's "hockey stick" has been conclusively BUSTED. Even NOAA has cut WAY back on their global warming predictions. After all, they had to since the predictions didn't come true. The CO2 probably isn't the "cause". But what IS the REAL cause? There may be none. We still haven't figured out whether or not the variations we've seen over the last 200 years or so are or are not within the "natural" variation of climate we're seeing. And remember, in the 70s, the same climate scientists were touting "global cooling", and suggesting we were entering another ice age. What this tells me, logically, is that it's a conjecture at this point. Further, why is it that the global warming proponents are unwilling to allow dissenters to publish their works in the same refereed journals? It's a problem, my friend.

Now, let's tie this back to pollution, if you like. You claimed that the 1st world is crapping on the 3rd world. OK, how so? Is it because the 1st world hasn't opened up much trade? OK, why might that be? Might it be because they have no money to buy many goods? Ask another question - why don't they have money? Maybe because they also don't have property rights like we do in the first world. Or let me ask this - are you expecting the 1st world to support the 3rd world materially? Should we as the first world be giving free food, water and shelter to the entire 3rd world, and anyone else in "abject poverty"? I would be curious to know your thoughts on the subject?

But getting back to population, the 3rd world often burn vegetable materials and dried animal feces for heating and cooking. I think that is a problem for pollution, and particularly for indoor air pollution and their health concerns.

And as to global warming, and I've said this before, NASA has observed global warming on MARS. That is a scientific fact. I daresay that the amount of human activity on Mars, though not non-zero has been pretty minimal, and is not ongoing. There is only one commonality that I'm aware of that we share with Mars. If you know a second, I'd like you to clue me in. So what do we do about that one? We have no control over that. Now, should we be polluting? No - we need to minimize pollution. But is CO2 necessarily dangerous? Again, the jury is still out. Despite what President Obama and his cronies wants you to believe, the question is FAR from settled.

AnotherOne said the following: "This man heads up an organization here in Minneapolis that is pushing for population control, just like SemiSteve. He said that we need to get the WORLD'S population DOWN to around 300 Million people in order for mankind to survive and thrive! So I guess the other 6.7 BILLION won't be THRIVING quite so much, will they?"

--And I wonder just exactly who is or isn't going to be suitable in their eyes for procreation? I've seen a few movies with these premises. Read a few books, too..

SemiSteve said, way below: "Let me just check in my dog-eared copy of the US Constitution, the one supplied to me by my watch-dog group the ACLU, to see if procreation is specifically a right. Hmmm, Well, the preamble does mention securing the blessings of liberty to posterity. Perhaps amendment 1, under the free exercise of religion? If such religion says that all have a right to procreate? A bit of a stretch. That's it. I don't see anything else."

--Once again, IDHeinz is right in that certain rights that are considered fundamental are not explicitly pointed out. Are you aware that freedom of movement (freedom to travel about the country unimpeded, or to leave the country) is considered a very fundamental right in the US? It's not in the constitution.

The right to fornicate or to procreate can be found in freedom of expression and freedom of religion - both. I'm a little surprised you don't see that in that way. There's also a freedom of association that is vaguely referred to in the 1st Amendment, and that can also be construed to mean that you can fornicate and/or procreate with whom you like.

Here, now, Steve. If you think you DON'T have an inherent right to procreate then you ought to agree with anti-sodomy and anti-homosexuality laws that were on the books years ago (and still exist in some places). Do you agree with this? It can't possibly illegal to have this, as it's not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the 1st amendment, right?

By the way - China has a different problem. Their totalitarian leadership (who has voluntarily loosened their grip somewhat) sees a problem in the future. There are so many folks in the cities, that they may not be able to feed everyone eventually. So if you live in the city, you are only supposed to have 1 child. If you live on the farm in the country, they don't have enough workers - procreate away! But China would like to "right size" their country. They'd like to have a population of 500 - 600 Million in 1-2 generations. So they are enforcing that 1 child policy. We are not having those problems here in the US, as IDHeinz and Hemmond have both pointed out. There isn't a need for your policy in the US. There is, however, a need for that policy in India, China, the Arab League and in Africa. I think your proposing what amounts to an unconstitutional law isn't the answer. I think educating these populations in population control is a better one.

Understand that eventually what will happen is that we'll have another plague of some kind. SARS and MERS (and ebola) all seem like likely candidates.

SemiSteve - "Some things take more than one or two tries before success."

And some things will NEVER work no matter how many times you try. They view reproduction as a method of attaining world power, and so far it's working, so they view reproduction as success and birth control as failure.

"The only cultures with booming populations are islamic, Hispanic, and North African countries. And they are indeed booming. So until you can suggest a way for mohamed to keep his exponential birth rates under control , I'm afraid your suggestions will go nowhere.

This is a waste of time of course, since mohamed has no intention of disobeying allah, nor of listening to pleadings from western liberals."

Things change...

Some things take more than one or two tries before success.

I heard Edison had to try many times to find the right material for the light bulb. Good thing he didn't quit after the initial numerous failures. Because having electric lights is a worthwhile goal; just as curtailing unsustainable unlimited human population expansion is...

"If we are running short of something there would be plenty for all if there were simply fewer of us. We can get there gradually by invoking sensible standards and insisting others do the same. I think we are still strong enough to insist very well, you know?"

Tower: "Afraid I don't know what kind of insisting you are talking about semisteve. "

SemiSteve - "Now, a few thousand years later, the planet is crowded with the results of that effort, and we know that the planet is indeed limited, it is time to take charge and cast aside antiquated ideas."

But the planet is NOT crowded in any practical manner. There is currently no problem with space, and there won't be in the foreseeable future.

SemiSteve - "I'd like to see our government recognize that it is a dead-end to continue expanding population and use it's influence to get other nations on board to cease letting out-of-date philosophies direct current policy."

Why attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist? There are REAL problems to worry about.

SemiSteve - "Birth control can be used effectively to result in a much more enjoyable and sustainable existence for humans on Earth. We have the technology. What we need to do is reduce the stranglehold of religion over governments and move towards a more scientific approach."

But the people who are currently doing the most reproduction don't WANT to use birth control.

SemiSteve - "We are the leading nation. We hold a lot of sway. "

Not among the people who are reproducing the most.

SemiSteve - "It's time to get our own act together; and then to pressure others to join in. Diplomacy is our first tool. Economic pressures should be talked about as the second choice method. "

No, either would be immoral. The correct way to "solve" the "problem" is to develop those countries economically, not to hurt them economically. Again, your "solution" would make the problem worse.

SemiSteve - "Where do you think the predominant population expansion is occurring? "

Where the people have the least economic freedom, of course. They need jobs, not wars.

"If we are running short of something there would be plenty for all if there were simply fewer of us. We can get there gradually by invoking sensible standards and insisting others do the same. I think we are still strong enough to insist very well, you know?"

theTower: "Afraid I don't know what kind of insisting you are talking about semisteve. Unless you are once again pushing your supersized oppressive government onto everyone that you keep insisting you don't advocate.And just who will get to decide what are going to be sensible standards?Its patently clear whats sensible to you is vastly different from the majority."

Since most religion was begun at a time when the world was thought to be boundless almost all major religions direct followers to go forth and multiply. Now, a few thousand years later, the planet is crowded with the results of that effort, and we know that the planet is indeed limited, it is time to take charge and cast aside antiquated ideas. I'd like to see our government recognize that it is a dead-end to continue expanding population and use it's influence to get other nations on board to cease letting out-of-date philosophies direct current policy.

Birth control can be used effectively to result in a much more enjoyable and sustainable existence for humans on Earth. We have the technology. What we need to do is reduce the stranglehold of religion over governments and move towards a more scientific approach.

We are the leading nation. We hold a lot of sway. It's time to get our own act together; and then to pressure others to join in. Diplomacy is our first tool. Economic pressures should be talked about as the second choice method.

So, AnotherOne, that guy wants to kill off 96% of the world's population? Since the population of the US is about 300 million, I'm going to guess where he got that number. Not even Canadians get to survive? They're pretty good neighbors and have lots of empty land.

As far as all that meat goes, I'm sure it could be processed into Soylent Green.

"If we are running short of something there would be plenty for all if there were simply fewer of us. We can get there gradually by invoking sensible standards and insisting others do the same. I think we are still strong enough to insist very well, you know?"

Afraid I don't know what kind of insisting you are talking about semisteve. Unless you are once again pushing your supersized oppressive government onto everyone that you keep insisting you don't advocate.And just who will get to decide what are going to be sensible standards?Its patently clear whats sensible to you is vastly different from the majority.

SemiSteve - you posted to your own topic 23 days later, after IDHeinz made his post. Don't you think this topic is more than a little worn out? And when you go making statements like: "Most current population expansion occurs among those who lead the most dreadful lives, often living as little more than rats from the droppings of the well-to-do." - it suggests that you have little intellectual capital left to discuss. If you have to resort to calling the 3rd world "Rats" and suggest they live off of the Feces of the 1st world, then I think you very much dehumanize people who are in bad circumstances. Why aren't you decrying the unjustness of their governments or the human rights violations? That's where you need to look first, not complaining that the third world is "crapping" on them. So far I've largely agreed with the topic, but now, once again, you've "jumped the shark", spouting liberal senseless gibberish.

SemiSteve - "If anyone else would like to intellectually discuss this topic without being disrespectful or claiming that I want to murder billions of people (which I have NEVER advocated) I would welcome it."

Yes, you insist that the Earth's population should be reduced from 7 billion people to 2 billion people, yet you refuse to say how 5 billion people will be made to disappear.

SemiSteve - "(I do refuse to reply to those who cling to this insulting straw man)"

You mean that you refuse to talk to anyone who disagrees with your advocation of genocide.

SemiSteve - "I maintain that most of the problems we are having as humans on this planet stem from the fact that there are simply too many humans. "

And you refuse to acknowledge that throughout history the more people we have the LESS misery we have. This is because we have more people working to solve problems, as proven by Julian Simon.

But there is no significant evidence that mankind is having ANY effect on the climate. Not only isn't it "the biggest problem of all", it isn't a problem AT all.

SemiSteve - "I believe it is absurd to think that we can continue to expand our population without expanding suffering. "

Yet you fail to acknowledge that human suffering has DECREASED as our population has increased.

SemiSteve - "Most current population expansion occurs among those who lead the most dreadful lives, often living as little more than rats from the droppings of the well-to-do."

And you vehemently object to economic development, the only proven way to raise the quality of their lives while causing them to desire to limit their own population.

SemiSteve - "We need to curtail birth, especially among this group. "

Why? Why do you hate humanity so much?

SemiSteve - "There is no need to even consider eliminating existing people. Natural processes will take care of that. "

But reproduction is a "natural process". Forcibly curtailing population is not. Just how do you propose to curtail birth? You just won't say.

SemiSteve - "We are always just a few generations away from drastically improving human life on Earth. "

Unfortunately we have people like you around, advocating policies that keep people in misery and increasing the problems that you complain about.

SemiSteve - "All we have to do is push silly antiquated religion out of the way and use the means already available to us. "

It's been tried, and it didn't just fail, it backfired. You can't force people to give up their superstitions. But they give them up "naturally" when their lives are improved, which you oppose.

SemiSteve - "Birth control. "

That is available to people, but the only place that it is effective is where it's not needed. It is to the advantage of poor people to have many children to have someone to care for them in their old age. But the policies that you advocate keep people poor and reproducing.

In fact, ALL of the policies that you advocate make the problems that you complain about WORSE. But that's what control freaks DO, of course. It's just part of your desire for power, and has nothing to do with helping people.

QUOTE :::: Of course, the biggest problem of all, global warming, is directly related to this.:::;

Non existent problem.

The computer climate models are all failing in their predictions of global warming - which is the only evidence global warming is based on ...

Also CO2 absorption of infrared has been maxed out since measurements were taken in the 1950s. No matter how much more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it is a scientific impossibility to re-radiate more energy.

Quote ::::I believe it is absurd to think that we can continue to expand our population without expanding suffering. :::

YOu keep expounding on a non existant problem. All the major western cultures are in population decline. Many will cease to exist is a couple of generations. Europe, Russian, China, Japan...all doomed. The only western culture with a stabilized population is the US. Even Canada is in a slow decline.

The only cultures with booming populations are islamic, Hispanic, and North African countries. And they are indeed booming. So until you can suggest a way for mohamed to keep his exponential birth rates under control , I'm afraid your suggestions will go nowhere.

This is a waste of time of course, since mohamed has no intention of disobeying allah, nor of listening to pleadings from western liberals.

If anyone else would like to intellectually discuss this topic without being disrespectful or claiming that I want to murder billions of people (which I have NEVER advocated) I would welcome it.

(I do refuse to reply to those who cling to this insulting straw man)

I maintain that most of the problems we are having as humans on this planet stem from the fact that there are simply too many humans. Of course, the biggest problem of all, global warming, is directly related to this.

I believe it is absurd to think that we can continue to expand our population without expanding suffering. Most current population expansion occurs among those who lead the most dreadful lives, often living as little more than rats from the droppings of the well-to-do.

We need to curtail birth, especially among this group. There is no need to even consider eliminating existing people. Natural processes will take care of that. We are always just a few generations away from drastically improving human life on Earth. All we have to do is push silly antiquated religion out of the way and use the means already available to us. Birth control.

SemiSteve - "To try to force an 18th century government on a 21st century world is exactly what they were hoping to avoid."

No, they were trying to guarantee freedom for the people. The tyranny that you are proposing is what they were hoping to avoid.

SemiSteve - "Overpopulation of the planet, to the point that people are forced to skimp and make do with less than they would like to use is something that never occurred to them."

It should never occurred to us, either, as it hasn't happened and there is no indication that it ever will.

SemiSteve - "If we are running short of something there would be plenty for all if there were simply fewer of us. We can get there gradually by invoking sensible standards and insisting others do the same. I think we are still strong enough to insist very well, you know?"

But we aren't running short, and killing off people is not a "solution", other than a Final Solution. I think we are still strong enough to resist your totalitarian society, you know?

SemiSteve - "It is for the good of humanity. We deserve to be good to ourselves. Really, we do."

It would be to the detriment of humanity, for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated, and which you are avoiding responding to. We deserve to be good to ourselves by avoiding your nightmare. Really, we do.

The founders were wonderfully visionary; but they could not have possibly imagined how complex today's world is. Fortunately they also knew this and set up a government which could grow to accommodate change.

To try to force an 18th century government on a 21st century world is exactly what they were hoping to avoid.

Overpopulation of the planet, to the point that people are forced to skimp and make do with less than they would like to use is something that never occurred to them.

If we are running short of something there would be plenty for all if there were simply fewer of us. We can get there gradually by invoking sensible standards and insisting others do the same. I think we are still strong enough to insist very well, you know?

It is for the good of humanity. We deserve to be good to ourselves. Really, we do.

SemiSteve: "I can see nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from making a law limiting births."

ldheinz: "Again, that's not how the law works. All power starts from the individual. We grant the government only certain powers, those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is illegal for the government to do anything else. Government does not give us any rights or privileges. We already have those. It's US that gives IT power.

It's called Consent of the Governed, and it's the principle that the US was founded on."

Bingo. But sadly, it's a principle that is today but a shadow of what our founders envisioned. They never envisioned an Executive Branch with a vast network of bureaucratic agencies, which are *not* governed by the people, but which are in charge of vast majority of the real governing/controlling of everyone and everything we do. The Executive Branch needs a crash diet to lose 90% of its weight (and it would still be more bloated and powerful than our founders envisioned).

ldheinz: "...government officials are not our rulers, they are our employees. When they forget this it's time to get rid of them."

That many of the governed have forgotten this (or don't even know) is what frightens me the most.

China has a population explosion problem. Why would they limit births if not? And China is not a Muslim or Latin nation. What about India? Is that Muslim or Latin? No. Population explosion in full on run-away mode? Yes.

Yes, Hemond, not only is it illegal for the US to limit births, it's also pointless, as it's unnecessary. Other than for immigration the US has a negative population growth, like much of the industrialized world. Also, I'd add Africa to your list of areas with excessive population, except for the fact that AIDS is killing so many people.

SemiSteve, government officials are not our rulers, they are our employees. When they forget this it's time to get rid of them.

SemiSteve - "I can see nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from making a law limiting births. "

Again, that's not how the law works. All power starts from the individual. We grant the government only certain powers, those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is illegal for the government to do anything else. Government does not give us any rights or privileges. We already have those. It's US that gives IT power.

It's called Consent of the Governed, and it's the principle that the US was founded on. Follow the link and learn something.

SemiSteve - "AC-302, I have ceased talking to idh on this topic because he kept trying to put some extremely vindictive words into my mouth, accusing me of saying hurtful messed up things I didn't say."

No, you ceased talking to me because I have thoroughly trounced every one of your seriously flawed assertions. Also, because I keep pointing out that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that making 5 billion people die is NOT a good thing, no matter how you do it, and you steadfastly refuse to say HOW 5 billion people can be made to go away, forcing me to speculate about what you are proposing.

SemiSteve - "I corrected him, answered his questions straight up; and he acted like he never heard it, persisting with the drivel. I could see it was pointless to continue so I put an end to it."

You didn't "correct" anything, YOU are the one who ignores what *I* say. You just repeat your already proven wrong assumptions, to which I respond to everything. As proof, scroll down to my posting of Apr 18, 2014 7:20:51 PM.

SemiSteve - "So if you think I am going to acknowledge a single thing he says you might as well forget it."

Chicken. Tired of getting beat, eh? You're no Atheist. You sound like a christian apologist avoiding answering every point that proves you're wrong.

SemiSteve - "Let me just check in my dog-eared copy of the US Constitution, the one supplied to me by my watch-dog group the ACLU, to see if procreation is specifically a right."

US Constitution, Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Since you clearly missed the point of the US Constitution, it does not give anyone any rights. A "right" is something that everyone inherently has, unless someone takes it away. Unless otherwise specified, citizens get to do whatever they want. The Constitution lists the things that the government gets to do. If it isn't specifically listed, the government doesn't have that power.

AC-302, I have ceased talking to idh on this topic because he kept trying to put some extremely vindictive words into my mouth, accusing me of saying hurtful messed up things I didn't say. I corrected him, answered his questions straight up; and he acted like he never heard it, persisting with the drivel. I could see it was pointless to continue so I put an end to it.

So if you think I am going to acknowledge a single thing he says you might as well forget it.

"Procreation is a fundamental right. And it could be construed as being against someone's religion NOT to have kids and as many as they please. But getting back to it, now you propose passing what will be unconstitutional laws."

Let me just check in my dog-eared copy of the US Constitution, the one supplied to me by my watch-dog group the ACLU, to see if procreation is specifically a right.

Hmmm,

Well, the preamble does mention securing the blessings of liberty to posterity. Perhaps amendment 1, under the free exercise of religion? If such religion says that all have a right to procreate? A bit of a stretch.That's it. I don't see anything else.

And, of course, you know; If we need to amend for the common good that is also possible. Over population was the last thing the founders would have thought would be a problem. It is only understandable that they would have no concern for that but that it might come up later.

AC-302 - " The problem with Hubbart is that his theory didn't take into account improvements in both extraction and in exploration. His theory make sense if you are talking about ONE and only one mine, quarry or well. After you find a second, then a third, his theory tends to break down. But eventually we will not discover any more petroleum. However, it would appear we're not even close to that point."

Resources become more available the more they are desired. And if we actually start running out of something, we find alternatives. Please name a time that we actually had to stop doing something because we ran out of resources.

SemiSteve said: "The solution is nations need to pass laws to limit birth; to limit to the number of children a couple can have. This can be done in many ways but the outcome must be secured."

--OK, let's say we do this. For the record, I totally disagree with this, as it can be incredibly draconian, like it is in China. Procreation is a fundamental right. And it could be construed as being against someone's religion NOT to have kids and as many as they please. But getting back to it, now you propose passing what will be unconstitutional laws. How are you proposing to enforce those laws? And what if a woman is married to one man, has one child, then divorces and marries another? Is she now "kid limited"?? There are a number of situations that you need to understand the ramifications of if you are going to propose something so draconian, Steve.

SemiSteve - I agree that finite resources can obviously only be tapped for so long. And as a thinking person, you might point to Hubbart's theory. The problem with Hubbart is that his theory didn't take into account improvements in both extraction and in exploration. His theory make sense if you are talking about ONE and only one mine, quarry or well. After you find a second, then a third, his theory tends to break down. But eventually we will not discover any more petroleum. However, it would appear we're not even close to that point.

Personally, I think oil/energy isn't the problem. WATER is getting to be a problem. Then again, we're surrounded by oceans of it. Desalinization is the key. Cleaning up seawater will provide water for like 80% of our world population. That is where the future lies.

And I would tell you that IDHeinz is talking sense, Steve. I have to agree that industrialization seems to be the key to reducing (generally speaking) population growth. He's got a point, and it's not one that I think you can dispute. If you really want zero population growth, promote capitalism everywhere, not socialism.

Speaking of finite resources, did you see the news item about the US Navy developing a process for making fuel from seawater for $6/gallon? Yes, seawater is, technically, a finite resource, but I don't think that the US Navy will be running out of it anytime soon. Heck, they're positively floating on fuel. And the good news is that we had the forethought to get started melting the polar ice caps to keep our energy supply safe for millennia to come. I'm sure glad that the parents of those scientists had the good sense to not use birth control, eh?

AC-302 - "How do we effect that culture change among people around the world to only want to have 1 or at the most 2 children ever? I have no good answer for this."

I do. There are many places on Earth which have a stable or negative population growth, and it didn't take the draconian worldwide totalitarian dictatorship that SemiSteve envisions. It's called the industrialized world. Yes, Capitalism is the solution to overpopulation. Rich people don't need lots of kids to provide for them in their old age. Rich people provide for their kids, which is expensive, and therefore they tend to have fewer kids. But SemiSteve violently opposes any REAL solution to his imagined problem. Those poor people need to be kept poor and in squalor so that SemiSteve and his ilk can have somebody to feel superior than. That's why he's so opposed to giving them the jobs that they so desperately need.

SemiSteve - "If there were an easy solution it would have been done already. So it's going to be difficult. "

But what if we SHOULDN'T implement tyranny for no benefit? You left that one out.

SemiSteve - "The solution is nations need to pass laws to limit birth; to limit to the number of children a couple can have. "

SemiSteve - "This can be done in many ways but the outcome must be secured.

Why? Why must human rights be stomped out, for the benefit of the 1% of which you consider yourself to be part? You hypocrite.

SemiSteve - "Some nations will resist. The nations that pass these laws must isolate themselves from the nations which resist. The nations which resist should be cut off from the rest of the world. Let the nations that resist become overpopulated and deplete their resources without help from the rest. "

So an end to national sovereignty as well? The entire world must be plunged into war? So THAT'S how you plan to murder most of humanity! And I've already shown that there are no scarce resources as long as we have plenty of people to create those resources.

SemiSteve - "The rest can live in peace and harmony and will not have to conserve because there will be plenty for everyone. "

As long as you obey the whims of Emperor SemiSteve, that is.

SemiSteve - "Eventually those nations which overpopulated themselves will realize their mistake and change. They then can be welcomed by the rest of the world.

You're really living in a dream world, SemiSteve. Make that a Nightmare World.

If there were an easy solution it would have been done already. So it's going to be difficult. The solution is nations need to pass laws to limit birth; to limit to the number of children a couple can have. This can be done in many ways but the outcome must be secured. Some nations will resist. The nations that pass these laws must isolate themselves from the nations which resist. The nations which resist should be cut off from the rest of the world. Let the nations that resist become overpopulated and deplete their resources without help from the rest. The rest can live in peace and harmony and will not have to conserve because there will be plenty for everyone. Eventually those nations which overpopulated themselves will realize their mistake and change. They then can be welcomed by the rest of the world.

ldheinz - "You describe a scenario where everyone is free to live their lives as they choose, and you ask that freedom be "corrected" by enslaving the owners of the factory, who provided for the public good by creating jobs for the community. "

ldheinz, as edited by SemiSteve - " enslaving the owners of the factory"

SemiSteve - "Oh, that's choice. By what twisted logic can the 1% be considered slaves?"

So any crime is okay as long as it's committed by YOUR group against the OTHER group? Isn't such groupism the very definition of bigotry? You're certainly using the techniques of the demagogue, using stereotypes like "1%" and "99%" to demonize people and dehumanize them so that they can be hurt without guilt. Why shouldn't everyone have equal rights under the law?

I recently saw this news article about scientists in China who have figure out a way to extract electricity from water rolling across a surface. Would this discovery, which may make possible limitless pollution-free power from rainfall, have been possible if the scientists involved had never been born? Just who will never be born if we limit population?

IDHeinz said: "But how do we decide who lives and dies? Plus, of course, the point that how do we determine if we have too many people?"

--All of these are true. And further, who is to say who can or cannot have children, nor how many you may have? The Chinese are saying, in effect, one couple, one child only, and even forcing abortions. But are you asking people to exert self control? Might work, might not. Are you asking people to not want to have children? What about right of property succession? And what about people's fundamental right to want to have children and procreate? It is a pretty fundamental right, as I understand it, one of the most basic of our freedoms. And in some religions, it's considered a good thing to have oodles of kids (Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism are at the forefront of this, as I understand it, but I'm sure there are others, too. People can say that they are merely following what their faith says to do, and they'd be right.

How do we effect that culture change among people around the world to only want to have 1 or at the most 2 children ever? I have no good answer for this.

"Should they leave their family and friends behind and move to another area that has more work?"

AC-302: "Uhh.. yes. And I've done that very thing myself, a number of times. It's what I had to do to support myself and later, my family. Unfortunatley, I may have to do it again."

And all this undesired moving is somehow productive? In what way? Wouldn't it be nicer to raise a family in one location, let the kids have a home town, friends, and a region they can fondly reminisce about?

" Haven't you been one of those on here that think Americans are paid too much money anyway? Haven't you advocated a "less is more" mentality, vis a vis lifestyles? Or do I misunderstand your position, my friend?"

umm, no, I have been on the other side of that coin. Most workers are generally underpaid. Executives and many doctors are among the few who are generally overpaid.

"But getting back to your original topic, I agree with you that we need to institute population control. I also agree with you that there are too bloody many people in this world. So how do you propose to institute population control, particularly in Asia and Africa? I don't have any good ideas. How about you? "

Good question. Obviously it needs to be done by limiting birth. We should certainly lead by example. We could build a stronger nation that way; and then impose trading restrictions on nations which resist.

SemiSteve - "Should they leave their family and friends behind and move to another area that has more work?"

My point is that you're blaming the company for something that is clearly not their fault. You do that a lot.

AC-302 - "I agree with you that we need to institute population control."

But how do we decide who lives and dies? Plus, of course, the point that how do we determine if we have too many people? Thomas Robert Malthus thought we had too many people over 200 years ago. If we can feed and house people, are there too many?

But getting back to your original topic, I agree with you that we need to institute population control. I also agree with you that there are too bloody many people in this world. So how do you propose to institute population control, particularly in Asia and Africa? I don't have any good ideas. How about you?

SemiSteve wrote: "Should they leave their family and friends behind and move to another area that has more work?"

--Uhh.. yes. And I've done that very thing myself, a number of times. It's what I had to do to support myself and later, my family. Unfortunatley, I may have to do it again.

Of course, one could always lower one's expectations. Haven't you been one of those on here that think Americans are paid too much money anyway? Haven't you advocated a "less is more" mentality, vis a vis lifestyles? Or do I misunderstand your position, my friend? And in your example, you yourself say that there is a glut of a certain type of worker or labor in the area. So is the employer supposed to pay, say, a New York City wage in this rural area? He can pay what the prevailing wage is in the area. And that also plays into the costs of many things in the area, such as homes.

SemiSteve, in your last post, how does having family in a area mean that the employer is oppressing the worker? Did the employer move the family into the area just to make it hard for the worker to leave? Was moving all those people somewhere just a strategy to lower wages? It's hard to see how that could be profitable. When did that ever happen? Why do you hold the employer responsible for things that are out of their control? It seems much more likely that by providing jobs in an area where the family lives is of great benefit to the entire family, not oppression, but support.

Note that the employer has no ability to force anyone to work for them. Only the force of government could create that evil. You describe a scenario where everyone is free to live their lives as they choose, and you ask that freedom be "corrected" by enslaving the owners of the factory, who provided for the public good by creating jobs for the community.

People have many reasons for what they do. Imagine that you live in an area where you have lots of family and there is not much opportunity for work. So you get the best job that you can that's available to you. And because there are more people in the area than available work this work does not pay very much. So what do you expect this person to do? Should they leave their family and friends behind and move to another area that has more work? And if they do this then they could get paid more but they wouldn't be happy because it would be all alone. And then suppose they did find better pay and they accepted being alone to get the money then what happens when those employers decide that oh you know there's other areas where there are more desperate job seekers so if we move the company then we could make even more money for the one percent. So then as soon as people start working in an area that has better working conditions the employer's pull up stakes and move to another area that has more desperate job seekers. This is the classic race to the bottom. And this is what you think its just doing good business. But what it's really doing is oppressing workers.